Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[methos]

The electronics of the Leopard 2A4 are located in the turret rear. The sight only occupies the space in front of the armour cavity.

 

[ersakthivel]

No it's not - from pivot center to the top hight of the hatch is 572mm so width of the hatch is circa 689mm. You even cant mesure some one dimenson on draw with ruler...


And again you do it wrong. Innacurate. You even don;t see how big is error in your job. Let me show how poor you are doing your job:




See? Magic - over 4m

See the hatch cover is more than 2.5 meters behind the plane of the turret front. So distances on the hatch cover plane can not be used as a scale to measure the turret width.

To make matters much worse if you take the ratio of of hatch width /hatch height from the pivot center to hatch tip, it becomes 1 and not 1.2. ,

So you have no need to multiply that 572 mm distance by 1.2 to arrive at a fancy figure of 689 mm to for hatch cover width

and arrive at even bizarre turret width of 4 meters,

The guys you are posting likes for the post of yours like Dejawolf are egging you on to become the clown of the circus by not pointing out such simple thing to you even in a simple private message.

Why has he gone suddenly silent on hatch cover width measurement, The reason is dejawolf already posted once that the hatch cover width is only 500 mm in a misconceived effort to arrive at a turret width of less than 3 meter at the crew hatch center.

See the following image where he marked the hatch cover width as 500 mm to arrive at a turret width at the center of hatch holes st less than 3000 mm.

No it's not - from pivot center to the top hight of the hatch is 572mm so width of the hatch is circa 689mm. You even cant mesure some one dimenson on draw with ruler...

I measured this 500 mm from the top of the pivot base which is clearly indicated by the scale on the following line drawing.

For that I got the hatch width / hatch height(from the top of the pivot ) ratio as 1.2.

If we accept your argument and measure the hatch height from the pivot center to hatch tip . It is of course 572 mm. I don't contest.

But in my following picture the ratio of hatch width /hatch height from the pivot center to hatch tip becomes 1.0.

So still I get the hatch width of only 572 mm,i'e 550 mm plus And subsequently the turret width at the axis joining the centers of the two hatch hole is more than 3.1 meter.

I neither contest or agree that this drawing is official. If you look at all my posts regarding the measurement of Arjun turret , My purpose was to take the measurement of the turret width at the axis joining the centers of the two hatch holes,

Not at the front(barring a couple of recent posts to counter some wild claims) ,

Why ? because the sole reason for this turret width debate is going on because of the no source claim by you and damian arguing ,

that there is only 300 mm LOS of armor behind the main sight based on the wrong seating arrangement,

that gunner and Tc are sitting right behind one another with no offset horizontal distance.(i.e the horizontal distance between the gunners' seat left edge and Tc' seat left edge.)

So at front what is the turret width or whether the turret has any slope on the sides have no relation to the seating arrangement of gunner and Tc ,based on which the LOS behind main armor is determined.

That was the reason I

 

[ersakthivel]

Of course it is:
Kampfpanzer heute und morgen, written by Rolf Hilms.
I post this sevral times here.:

Draw from Kampfpanzer heute und morgen:

DRDO width - 3864mm

red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)
158px - 2384mm (2,38m)
20px - 301mm (30cm...)


Or this draw:

DRDO width - 3864mm





It's "final" only in your wet dream.
You are tottal hypocrite -you are looking any posible perspective error in my draw and mesurment but fact that your, compleltly pointles, and whit sevral times bigger error "face" and "hatch" mesurment is OK for you and " final for all". No it's not - you even can't mark hatch hight properly including perspectiwe or angles. Error present on your "mesurment" is close to the 25-30% what makes them pointless. What more - as ussaly - while you have simple and easly to count surface (turret hight on corner) and easly to count it to width you are trying to escape in complelty stupid, wnd whit enormous error "face" or "hatch" masurment.

ps. Kunal - dont delate this post, it's important to face whit some problem here.

So if you claim as per your model that the turret width at the front turret tip is 2840 meter , then the following model of Dejawolf becomes automatically wrong.

The whole debate for the turret width started only after after Dejawolf posted his above drawing to contradict my drawing below based on a hatch cover width of 550 mm to arrive at a turret width at the center of 3140 mm

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.

it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.

The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .

This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,

found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.

This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

Width over track is 3540 mm.


About half of the crew hatch is enclosed between the red line an the blue line. The red line indicates the track width border of 3540 mm(because there should be some gap between the inside of the side skirt plates and the track side edge.)

That is about 0.50x550 mm=220 mm
3540-(220x2=440 mm)= 3140 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

There needs to be a correction factor for taking the same length turret width line which is situated at a depth of the close to 1.5 meter from hull plane . If we apply that the hull width is only going to increase, not decrease.

Because the fixed length rectangle on the hatch cover will measure less length if we bring it in front by 1.5 meters on the hull plane,

Since my opponents here will not accept it as they don't have any idea about Perspective distortion, I haven't included it here.

Even if you take a worst case scenario of 3000 mm turret width, giving a very large margin of 140 mm for inaccuracies

So distance from the centerline of the turret to the center of the Tc seat is 724 mm ,

distance from the centerline of the turret to the starting of the storage box is 1315 mm.[158px - 2384mm (2,38m)]

So if we have turret width at center as 3100 plus mm, your claim of 1200 mm(2380/2=1200 mm approx ) is not far from my claim.And it is only going to increase to 1300 mm plus as you measure turret width on the axis joining the centers of the two hatch covers

DRDO width - 3864mm.



red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)

158px - 2384mm (2,38m)()
20px - 301mm (30cm...)

So a gap of 600 mm approx is there between the center of the Tc seat and the the starting of the storage box,

Of which half the width of the Tc seat takes up 250 mm

So a distance of 350 mm is there on the turret side between the still to be explained .

How much of this is side turret wall thickness is yet to be known.

Storage boxes start only after that.

The picture also shows that the turret is curved with higher width at the center and the lower width at the front, but how much it is curved needs some clarification as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

@kushalappa@sayareakd @rahulrds1 @Rahul Singh
@Kunal Biswas @methos @Damian @militarysta @pmaitra @Dejawolf

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-97.html

the discussion were over 30 pages ago, but you kept reviving old assumptions despite being hit back with hard solid evidence, proving your assumptions had no foundations at all. there's 4 people in here, using over 4 differenent methods of measuring, using over 5 different sources, images, line drawings, widths and measurements of the real vehicle, consistently showing that it's impossible for the turret to be wider than 2.9m, and yet you keep spewing out your bile. you have nobody supporting your views, who can BACK UP your measures. our measurements are peer-reviewed now. they are scientifically proven to be the most likely.

The following post was made in response to the post above by dejawolf.

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.

it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.

The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .

This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,

found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.

This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

Width over track is 3540 mm.


About half of the crew hatch is enclosed between the red line an the blue line. The red line indicates the track width border of 3540 mm(because there should be some gap between the inside of the side skirt plates and the track side edge.)

That is about 0.50x550 mm=220 mm
3540-(220x2=440 mm)= 3140 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

There needs to be a correction factor for taking the same length turret width line which is situated at a depth of the close to 1.5 meter from hull plane . If we apply that the hull width is only going to increase, not decrease.

Because the fixed length rectangle on the hatch cover will measure less length if we bring it in front by 1.5 meters on the hull plane,

Since my opponents here will not accept it as they don't have any idea about Perspective distortion, I haven't included it here.

Even if you take a worst case scenario of 3000 mm turret width, giving a very large margin of 140 mm for inaccuracies

Oh what do you know wrong again:

What is it you say? oh yeah "you can't argue with this". Off cause this photo will not stop all trolling unfortunately
STGN

See I too was arguing for a turret width of minimum 3100 mm at the center. Now you are giving me proof.

But a small correction needs to be made. You have measured hatch height from the center of the pivot to arrive at a ratio of 1.09.

I have measured hatch height from the top of the pivot to arrive at a ratio of 1.2. So nothing wrong with that.

If you too take pixel measurement from the top of the pivot you will also get a ratio of 1.2 and a hatch cover width well in excess of 550 mm.

So distance from the centerline of the turret to the center of the Tc seat is 724 mm ,

distance from the centerline of the turret to the starting of the storage box is 1315 mm.[158px - 2384mm (2,38m)]

So if we have turret width at center as 3100 plus mm, your claim of 1200 mm(2380/2=1200 mm approx ) is not far from my claim.And it is only going to increase to 1300 mm plus as you measure turret width on the axis joining the centers of the two hatch covers



So a gap of 600 mm approx is there between the center of the Tc seat and the the starting of the storage box,

Of which half the width of the Tc seat takes up 250 mm

So a distance of 350 mm is there on the turret side between the still to be explained .

How much of this is side turret wall thickness is yet to be known.

Storage boxes start only after that.

The picture also shows that the turret is curved with higher width at the center and the lower width at the front, but how much it is curved needs some clarification as well.

Also take 450 mm from the photo above and apply it to the photo below you will get a frontal turret width in excess of 3000 mm .
as well.
It is also quite logical since in the photo above a portion of the side turret is showing indicating that the photo was taken not perpendicular to the turret front face. So you will only get a less than real turret front face width.

But in the photo below no side portion of the turret is showing , indicating that the photo was taken perpendicular to the turret front , so we will get a real dimension of the turret width at the front at close to 3040 mm approx, clarification needed.

So from the date of the following line drawing there is a possibility that some changes are made to the turret as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

The yellow rectangle marks the position of the gun sledge measuring 250 mm minimum.

The blue rectangle is the gunner's seat horizontal position very close to the gun sledge as per photo below(for reference look at the width of the gun sledge and compare it with the gap between the gun sledge edge and the Gunner's seat edgeno way it is going to be more than 200 mm. But the Tc seat starts more than 500 mm away from the center line of the turret giving ample room for some lateral placement of seats rather than the strict one behind one arrangement .),

And the maroon rectangle marks the Tc's seat. So most of Tc's knee space goes over gunner's right shoulder. So there is no need for 680 mm knee and leg space between the Tc's seat back and the gunner's seat back , with gunner sitting well below Tc.

And he have right. Arjun LOS behin main sight is between 300 and 400mm LOS.
My own mesurment give circa 350mm max, Dejawolf circa 380mm max.
More or les Arjun protection after main sight is non existing against modern tank rounds and ATGMs. Thats all.

So this is the LOS behind the main sight rough idea of course as nothing less than 700 mm approx .

If the army asks for the sight to be moved on top in mk-2 like it was done in LEO upgraqdes, it will be around 1400 mm minimum. And it needs no major re engineering at all. Just placing the dog house for the main sight higher and replacing the cutaway with composite armor block.

Other than the length of the optic pipe extending below from the dog house to the gunner no other part needs to be displaced in this effort.

After the end of the TC seat there is a distance of close to 300 mm between the edge of the Tc's seat and the start of the storage boxes.

Of this at least 100 mm vacant space is visible between the Tc seat right shoulder edge and the inner turret wall, Meaning a 200 mm space for a LOS 200 mm side armor behind the storage boxes. Of course this has to be checked for correctness

 

[ersakthivel]

STGN

Then why does the 3.45 meter line goes on shrinking in distance when it reaches the turret front from the hull front?

But the same rules don't apply for 2.02 meter line on the hull perhaps,

For the same horizontal distance traveled 3.45 meter line shrinks by a margin of 1.28 at the turret front face.

This is the same analogy of the picture of railway tracks where eventhough the distance between the two rails are constant at all points it appears to be shrinking further as it goes from the bottom of the photo to the top of the photo.



But the 2.02 meter line shrinks only by by a margin of 1.17 for the same distance traveled(from the hull front to turret front.).

So it is obvious that the 2.82 meter turret face width marked based on the lesser reducing 2.02 meter line is much lesser than the real turret width.

Also if you take the black line at the base of the turret as measuring 3.45 meter then,

the ratio between the length of the black line/the length of the green line measuring 2.84 on the turret is 1.2.

So 3450 mm/1.2 also gives close to 2950 mm. SO even in the front this crude measurement technique gives close to 3 meters as front face width of the turret.

Of course this is a very inaccurate method to measure but it clearly suggests the mentioned turret width of 2.82 meters is well below the real width.

 

[The Last Stand]

@militarysta, aren't the latest Polish 125 mm capable of penetrating 610 mm?

@Kunal Biswas, according to official sources, such as this, this, and this,

Certified penetration of indigenous 120 mm round: 500 mm at 2 Km, bound to be 30-40 mm more at point-blank range

Of course, Poland uses better rounds such as DM-43, but their indigenous stuff has reached this level.

Certified penetration of short 125 mm round: >=500 mm at 2 km, again about the same.

It must be noted that both these rounds appear to be similar, with the 125 mm penetrator having more mass - i.e 3.7 kg compared to 3.65 kg of the 120 mm penetrator, while the 120 mm penetrator seems to have more length. As such, the sabot used by Poland is composite, not aluminium so this performance is expectable.

Of course, longer 125 mm rounds can be seen on the second last page of the last source - i.e. the segmented penetrator pdf, which could be the 610 mm penetrating round.

And penetrators with similar length, 23 mm diameter are seen to penetrate upto 468 mm at unknown range. These rounds seem to have been fired with much lesser muzzle velocity, and the length is lesser than the long 125.

That should do it.

 

[militarysta]

@militarysta, aren't the latest Polish 125 mm capable of penetrating 610 mm?

Not now - it's modernization whit composite sabot (non metalic -ultra light). The best avaible 125mm round in Poland now is circa 500mm RHA on 2000m serial and slighty more for thhose segmented ones.

 

[The Last Stand]

Not now - it's modernization whit composite sabot (non metalic -ultra light). The best avaible 125mm round in Poland now is circa 500mm RHA on 2000m serial and slighty more for thhose segmented ones.

But I took your word as on one of these threads where you said penetration of 125 mm Polish is 610 mm.

Do you mean that the round is not yet in service?

 

[militarysta]

So this is the LOS behind the main sight rough idea of course as nothing less than 700 mm approx .

NO, it's not.
IMHO you do it in completly usles way. You are trying to masure and put all internal components and human bodies (Tc, gunner) while it's complelty not necessery and in fact usles couse we are interesting only in one LOS value - after main sight "doghouse" and crew somparment. To calculate this value is completly no needed more then 4 infos:
1) when is ending backplate
2) when is start armour block so in other way - where is ending main sight "doghouse"
3) how many cm have distance between 1) and 2) so you shoud have some:
4) "indicator" easly to rescale from draw to real tank.

And this is all. No nedded turet width, hatch widtch, crew plasment inside tank, etc.

1) Point when is ending backplate is very easly to find on Arjun interior pictures:


On photos above all is visible - backplate is ending before gunner main sight vision block. And this point is under turret roof vision block - placed completly vertical.
So we have really easly to find the Point when is ending backplate -it's edge of the turret roof vision block.
Thos point is over the discusion becouse all is clearly visible on photos. Other conclusions are possible ony while sombody is taking LSD during wathingh those photos...

2. Point when is start armour block so in other way - where is ending main sight "doghouse" is really easly to find too in case Arjun.
All is nice visible on this wonderfull photo:

there is clearly visible area when main sight window block "doghouse" is placed. Again no doubts here. What more we have factory Arjun photo when this place is visble very clerly too:

Again no doubt when is ending doghouse (main sight vision block)

3. Value "3)" how many cm have distance between 1) and 2) is our "x" and needed value.

4. The "indicator" easly to rescale from draw to real tank.
Here are sevral posibilities. Nice and good visible is bar holder on turret roof.


After rescale those element using Arjun draw we have 520mm lenght for bar holder.
Knowing this value we can rescale our "x" value:


Another proof is fact that we can mark on draw when is placed turret roof vision block and when is starting armour block after main sight without any real values -just knowing proportion or % from "one bar holder lenght".
Result is this:

(just skip the place internal components on draw, only photo is important now)

and here we can (knowing proportion or % from "one bar holder lenght") place components on Arjun draw:


In all cases "x" value is circa 350mm +/- 30mm.

You have here only 4 steps, whit only TWO mesurment - real bar holder lenght in cm and after that rescale this value on looking "x" value. Thats all whit only small posibility of the error. Simple, more accurate, easly to do.

 

[militarysta]

But I took your word as on one of these threads where you said penetration of 125 mm Polish is 610 mm.

Do you mean that the round is not yet in service?

As I remember it was about prototype under developing whit composite sabot.

 

[The Last Stand]

As I remember it was about prototype under developing whit composite sabot.

Okay

Do you have an update on Polish APFSDS rather than the ones I have posted.

 

[ersakthivel]

@militarysta

The image above is completely wrong and you have moved the gunner's seat and Tc's seat wrongly to a point more than 300 mm in front of where they actually are to arrive at a lesser LOS of 350 mm or so. I have pointed this out hundred times and you are unwilling to acknowledge this simple error.

Just look at the picture below , the horizontal position of the end of the gun sledge is also the same as that of the gunner's seat back rest.

This point is 2200 mm behind the turret front tip. But in your drawing you have moved the gunner's seat by more than 300 mm infront according to the wrong 3 d image posted by @Dejawolf .

Just make the correction and correct your mistake,

why are you simply keeping quiet on this issue?

Just look at the line drawing below. If the gunner's seat has to be visible as per the photo above, It must be at a position of minimun 2200 mm behind the turret front tip according to the line drawing below,Can't you simply acknowledge that?

The drawing below is perfectly scaled ,

with placement of the tc's seat head rest (close to 2500 mm behind the front tip of the turret ) and Tc' seat front edge(close to 2100 mm behind the turret front tip),

and

the gunner's seat back rest at 2100 mm behind the turret front tip (parallel to the gun sledge end)and the vroof top vision block fixed as per the crew inside photo,

positioned according to the photos and line drawing above.

THE ROOF TOP VISION BLOCK IS VISIBLE WHERE IT ACTUALLY EXISTS INSIDE THE TANK.

And both you and I have no proof either the light channel from the roof top vision block is vertical or slanted.But it's position inside the crew compartment in the properly scaled photo gives LOS for armor thickness behind main sight between 700 to 800 mm approx.

The yellow rectangle marks the position of the gun sledge measuring 250 mm minimum.

The blue rectangle is the gunner's seat horizontal position very close to the gun sledge as per photo below(for reference look at the width of the gun sledge and compare it with the gap between the gun sledge edge and the Gunner's seat edgeno way it is going to be more than 200 mm. But the Tc seat starts more than 500 mm away from the center line of the turret giving ample room for some lateral placement of seats rather than the strict one behind one arrangement .),

And the maroon rectangle marks the Tc's seat. So most of Tc's knee space goes over gunner's right shoulder. So there is no need for 680 mm knee and leg space between the Tc's seat back and the gunner's seat back , with gunner sitting well below Tc.

So this is the LOS behind the main sight rough idea of course as nothing less than 700 mm approx .

If the army asks for the sight to be moved on top in mk-2 like it was done in LEO upgraqdes, it will be around 1400 mm minimum. And it needs no major re engineering at all. Just placing the dog house for the main sight higher and replacing the cutaway with composite armor block.

Other than the length of the optic pipe extending below from the dog house to the gunner no other part needs to be displaced in this effort.

After the end of the TC seat there is a distance of close to 300 mm between the edge of the Tc's seat and the start of the storage boxes.

Of this at least 100 mm vacant space is visible between the Tc seat right shoulder edge and the inner turret wall, Meaning a 200 mm space for a LOS 200 mm side armor behind the storage boxes. Of course this has to be checked for correctness.

So just stop repeatedly posting the same wrong stuff over and over completely ignoring the fact that there is an offset horizontal distance between the gunner's seat and the Tc's seat which allows for the knee space of Tc toi go over the right shoulder of gunner.

 

[Dejawolf]

can someone please just delete this image already, only ershaktivel has a short enough memory to forget the lines do not at all line up with the real turret.
it doesn't take into account neither the front slope on the turret roof, or the angle of the turret sides.

 

[ersakthivel]

can someone please just delete this image already, only ershaktivel has a short enough memory to forget the lines do not at all line up with the real turret.

The lines that matter are parallel to each other and lining up with turret. Further only after this drawing you stopped posting your wrong claim of just 2.86 meter turret width at it's widest part for a while,
But after a while you made this following drawing and started claiming that the width of the hatch cover is 500 mm approx .In reality it is anything between 550 mm and 600 mm.

The following draw is the conclusive proof that at it's widest part the Arjun turret measures 3100 mm plus and the distance between the crew hatches is close to 1400 mm approx and not 1200 mm as you claimed in the draw above,.

it doesn't take into account neither the front slope on the turret roof, or the angle of the turret sides.

The drawing above teaches you some elementary principles to be taken into account while measuring dimensions in a perspective drawing by projecting it to a proper cross sectional plane and expose as lie your following quote in Arjun VS T-90 thread.

The discussion were over 30 pages ago, but you kept reviving old assumptions despite being hit back with hard solid evidence, proving your assumptions had no foundations at all. there's 4 people in here, using over 4 differenent methods of measuring, using over 5 different sources, images, line drawings, widths and measurements of the real vehicle, consistently showing that it's impossible for the turret to be wider than 2.9m, and yet you keep spewing out your bile. you have nobody supporting your views, who can BACK UP your measures. our measurements are peer-reviewed now. they are scientifically proven to be the most likely.

Front slope has no role to play here as no one is measuring any dimension at the turret top.

But what it exposes is your wrong claim that the ,"Arjun turret width does not cross 2.84 meter at it's widest part".

I also request the mods remove all your 3D models like the ones below to a separate thread because they are all done with false dimensions of Arjun turret being 2.84 meter wide at it's widest part and place the Tc 300 mm in front of where he actually should be along with another factual error showing the roof top vision block at 1080 mm behind the turret tip where in reality it should be at a place minimum1250 mm behind the turret tip.

Because the following photo conclusively proves the position of the gunner in your model is completely wrong.
Because the gunner's seat back starts in line with the end of the gun sledge in the photo below at a distance of more than 2100 mm behind the gun tip at the turret front. But in your 3D models you have positioned the gunner more than 400 mm infront of where he actually should be to justify your 350 mm LOS behind the main sight claim.

Considering all those errors in your so called 3D models of arjun for which you are unable to respond the draw given by me gives a much better representation of the method to arrive at a correct turret width of 3100 mm plus at it's widest part.

Further my post number , 5404 , 5405 ,5413 all in this same page conclusively prove based on the line drawings and many photo based evidences , that all the claims of you and your "ONLY 300 PLUS MM PROTECTION BEHIND MAIN SIGHT " theory expounding friends as completely wrong, So no wonder that you want it to be removed.

 

[ersakthivel]

@kushalappa@sayareakd @Rahul Singh
@Kunal Biswas @methos @Damian @militarysta @pmaitra @Dejawolf

As per this image above the following arjun turret width is 3100 mm plus at it's widest correct .

@Dejawolf 's following draw is wrong arriving at a turret width of 2840 mm at it's widest based on 500 mm hatch cover width.

But the following draw based on Arjun hatch cover width being 550 mm -plus has arrived at a correct width of turret at it's widest being 3100 mm plus.

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.

it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.

The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .

This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,

found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.

This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

Width over track is 3540 mm.


About half of the crew hatch is enclosed between the red line an the blue line. The red line indicates the track width border of 3540 mm(because there should be some gap between the inside of the side skirt plates and the track side edge.)

That is about 0.50x550 mm=220 mm
3540-(220x2=440 mm)= 3140 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

There needs to be a correction factor for taking the same length turret width line which is situated at a depth of the close to 1.5 meter from hull plane . If we apply that the hull width is only going to increase, not decrease.

Because the fixed length rectangle on the hatch cover will measure less length if we bring it in front by 1.5 meters on the hull plane,

 

[Dejawolf]

The drawing above teaches you some elementary principles to be taken into account while measuring dimensions in a perspective drawing by projecting it to a proper cross sectional plane and expose as lie your following quote in Arjun VS T-90 thread.

don't talk to me like you made that image. STGN proved my claim wrong, with fairly solid evidence, using pixel measurements.
and it is true, you were just spewing bile, throwing around random insults and claiming turret width was 3.2m because kunal biswas says so.
any claims you have ever made has been complete nonsense, from armoured stowage boxes, prototype tanks, 3.2m turret widths,
gunnes behind gunshield, protected ammunition storage, 1800mm thick front turret, it is plain obvious you don't know anything about tanks.
if STGN, Damian or militarista makes a claim, they back it up with solid logical evidence. you on the other hand takes the religious stance, lie and manipulate numbers to fit your own claims, ridicule measurement methods and then divert attention when you're being exposed for those lies.

this whole idiotic argument about turret width started because you were unable to face the facts that the sides of the turret center and rear has about 90mm protection.
and there's numerous pictures that proves it,
the images of the interior ledge on the TC spot,
the image of the ammunition rack being hoisted into the turret,
picture of loaders position showing a large ledge between hatch hole and wall,
exterior picture showing position of TC's panoramic sight,
that tube-like thing on the loaders side

 

[ersakthivel]

don't talk to me like you made that image. STGN proved my claim wrong, with fairly solid evidence, using pixel measurements.

STGN did what I did . That too only after I posted the rough image like the one below with correct hatch cover width of 550 mm plus,

. I used ratio based measurement to prove you wrong, he used pixel based, Both are one and the same,

Why did I use ratios? Because any one can take a printout of the original picture and check it all by himself to know who is lying and who is not.

What STGN did was not to support my opinion , He used pixel based measurement in the following draw to to support your claim of 2.84 meter at the widest fro the turret.

Only after repeated attempts from my side he did realize his mistake.And posted the pic with 3.1 meter turret width.

Don't try to confuse the issues.

and it is true, you were just spewing bile, throwing around random insults and claiming turret width was 3.2m because kunal biswas says so.
any claims you have ever made has been complete nonsense, from armoured stowage boxes, prototype tanks, 3.2m turret widths,

Turret is still 3100 mm plus at it's widest, One has to just open his eyes and come to senses to acknowledge it. Only after repeated gutter language and continuous attempts to claim your lies as truth I lost my cool and gave you back what You threw at me.

So don't play the victim card too fast. All your so called Leo based 3d models to support the baseless claim by Damian about 300 mm LOS behind main sight is busted shows who is posting nonsense here.

I can still quote the posts to let every one know who started this bile spewing game here.

gunnes behind gunshield, protected ammunition storage, 1800mm thick front turret, it is plain obvious you don't know anything about tanks.
if STGN, Damian or militarista makes a claim, they back it up with solid logical evidence. you on the other hand takes the religious stance, lie and manipulate numbers to fit your own claims, ridicule measurement methods and then divert attention when you're being exposed for those lies.

Gunner still sits some where between the gun and the main sight, Since acknowledging truths is not one of your strong points , i don't give a damn if you position the gunner even out side the tank.

I told earlier that I don't know anything about tanks. I never lied. I still don't know much about tanks. But tanks are just a whole machine built of sub assemblies and produced as per production drawing which I know very well. Nobody designs tanks as per some fake 3d models you peddle here.Just know it.

Ammo storage is still much better protected than any of the tanks in IA and it is going to be on par with international standards in mk-2, So please spare your worries for the Indian tank crew, i am sure CVRDE won't let them down, however you may try to prove by your ferocious attempts at shadowing the truth.

Please convey my opinion to Damian and militarista that their knowledge of drawing is less than half of yours and it is a dangerous level of illiteracy to make dubious attempts at proving your even more wrong 3d models of yours.

less said the better about your crazy attempts to take fancy measurement even without knowing the planes not perpendicular to the viewer will distort the length and your inability to learn the basic fact that measurements taken on planes at different depths from the camera can not have the same scale all despite many repeated remainders from my side.

Worse still, your band of brothers who are still religiously chanting 350 mm LOS behind the main sight choir song are producing even more crazy drawings with complete disregard for any of the basic facts like all assemblies should be in a proper position in all views namely elevation , side view, plan.

And going by their repeated ignorance to even google perspective drawing and engineering drawing and check these basic facts they will keep on doing the same till the end of days I suppose.

this whole idiotic argument about turret width started because you were unable to face the facts that the sides of the turret center and rear has about 90mm protection.

this whole argument of turret width started when you stared applying the leo 3d model with wrong dimensions based on stupid claims by damian of 300 mm LOS behind main sight ans 25 mm thick side armor.

and there's numerous pictures that proves it,

Every picture proved your 3d model wrong and still you claim picture based evidence to discredit me!!!!!!!!. Such tenacious argument won't help you in anything .

the images of the interior ledge on the TC spot,
the image of the ammunition rack being hoisted into the turret,
picture of loaders position showing a large ledge between hatch hole and wall,

That large ledge is just about 100 mm thick, And had been factored in my calculation to arrive at 200 mm plus space for LOS at the turret sides, which you will never acknowledge.,

The little red vertical line at the right side edge of Tc's crew hole ring signifies the inner wall of the crew compartment .

And the distance between the little red line and the start of the storage box (at more than more than 250 mm horizontal distance from the red line ) indicates there is enough space for side turret armor on par with international standards.

exterior picture showing position of TC's panoramic sight,
that tube-like thing on the loaders side

exterior picture of Tc's panoramic sight has no relation to the turret width and the and the LOS behind the main sight. The debate was not about the position of the Tc's sight .

The whole debate was about your faulty claims and even faulty 3d models, and your dishonesty in accepting the truth even after being conclusively proved wrong.

I arrived at a turret width of 3100 mm plus with my drawings in more than two different ways and was contested by STGN for more than 30 pages and finally accepted after seeing incontrovertible evidence.

All your attempt to paint kunal as lying about 3.2 meter turret width has been busted by me ,does not mean you can abuse me forever even after being conclusively proved wrong.

So you can stop these subjective creative essay writing efforts on word war , relax a bit and gives us all a well earned break , I suppose

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I think you are the one throwing nonsense..

1. Yes Armored storage in bins in turret as well as Chassis compare to Open racks of T-tanks..

-------------------

2. All tanks posted here are mainly prototype except a single tank which was operational and was showed in defexpo 2010..

-------------------

3. Deal with it, Not my statement but also supported by other two members who were on Arjun MK1.

-------------------

4. Possible, Nothing can be dis - credited now, we need better pictures of this in defexpo 2014..

-------------------

Its plain obvious that you don't know much and pushing your opinion over others..

don't talk to me like you made that image. STGN proved my claim wrong, with fairly solid evidence, using pixel measurements.
and it is true, you were just spewing bile, throwing around random insults and claiming turret width was
3.2m because kunal biswas says so.any claims you have ever made has been complete nonsense, from armoured stowage boxes, prototype tanks, 3.2m turret widths,
gunnes behind gunshield, protected ammunition storage, 1800mm thick front turret, it is plain obvious you don't know anything about tanks

 

[Dejawolf]

The whole debate was about your faulty claims and even faulty 3d models, and your dishonesty in accepting the truth even after being conclusively proved wrong.

I arrived at a turret width of 3100 mm plus with my drawings in more than two different ways and was contested by STGN for more than 30 pages and finally accepted after seeing incontrovertible evidence.

All your attempt to paint kunal as lying about 3.2 meter turret width has been busted by me ,does not mean you can abuse me forever even after being conclusively proved wrong.

no, the whole debate was started by you, and your inane belief that the storage boxes was addon armour.